# Fisher v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · March 1, 1991 · 587 So. 2d 1027

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7595483

## Case

- **Full name:** Manson FISHER, Jr. v. STATE
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 1, 1991
- **Citations:** 587 So. 2d 1027; 1991 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 169
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bowen
- **Judges:** Bowen, McMillan, Who
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7595483

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, because "the evidence in [this] case clearly indicates that the appellant had a deliberate intent to kill particular individuals," the offense of reckless murder did not apply

## Opinion text

BOWEN, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur only in the result reached by the majority in Part I of its opinion holding that the standards of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), do not extend to “gender based” peremptory strikes and that the prosecutor’s arbitrary use of peremptory strikes against female venirepersons is not unconstitutional. My concurrence is not because I agree with the majority’s holding but because a dissent is a futile gesture. In Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala.1991), a majority of the Alabama Supreme Court held that “the defendant’s group identity must correlate with the identity of the group excluded from the jury in order to establish an equal protection claim.” Under Bankhead, Fisher, who is a male, has no standing to object to the prosecutor’s arbitrary use of his peremptory strikes against females in the selection of the jury.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7595483. Public record. Not legal advice.